Colombo gets emboldened by weak resolutions: civil society activist

[TamilNet, Friday, 07 March 2014, 19:08 GMT]The draft resolution to be tabled at the UN Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) sessions this month in Geneva has not only disappointed the
Tamils by failing to demand an international investigation, it has even
failed to recognise the domestic failures despite two rounds of similar
resolutions at the UNHRC in 2012 and 2013, said Tamil Civil Society
Forum (TCSF) representative and Jaffna University law academic
Kumaravadivel Guruparan this week at a press briefing to journalists in
Jaffna. Pointing out 4 major flaws in the latest resolution and
comparing the draft with the recent report by the High Commissioner of
Human Rights, Mr Guruparan explained the positive and negative aspects
of Navi Pillay's approach. The SL State has in fact been emboldened with
the weak resolutions year by year, he said.

[The comments specified as off-the-record by Guruparan have been removed in the audio]

Mr
Guruparan also explained the approach TCSF has chosen already on 21
February in presenting its proposals to the drafting agents.

Apart
from failing to call for an international investigation, the draft
resolution also raises 3 other questions, according to Guruparan. Why
did the drafting agents avoid demanding a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) by
the UNHRC and stop at OHCHR inquiry? What are the international
procedures for Tamils to push the process beyond the jurisdiction of
UNHRC into the Security Council [from where practical results could
come]? Why the continued grave injustices have escaped the attention of
the resolution except at one instance?

Guruparan Kumaravadivel

Explaining the differences between
CoI and UN High Commissioner carrying out the task of monitoring,
reporting and investigating as described in the draft resolution,
Guruparan said that the Tamil position should be pushing the issue
beyond the jurisdiction of the CoI. The UNHRC process would be just
another report making without any legal prosecution. However, Tamils
could welcome if it is a CoI approach that could place the ball at the
hands of the Security Council to conduct an independent legal
prosecution.

When the TSCF members met a senior foreign diplomat
visiting the island, we pointed out that following the weak 2013 March
resolution, the Sri Lankan State seized more than 6,000 acres of lands
in Valikaamam North on 26 April. Similarly, when the diplomats were
visiting the island this year the SL Defence was deploying soldiers in
bicycles to monitor the people. The SL Defence establishment wants to
pass the message that the current international process is emboldening
it. The diplomat said a stronger resolution may fail to pass at all at
the voting. In our opinion, the outcome would be same whether a strong
resolution getting failed or a weak resolution getting passed, Mr
Guruparan said.

There is also a mind-set in a section of Tamil
circles that ‘some resolution’ should be brought out as it is important
to keep ‘Sri Lanka’ on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council.

We
have to ask ourselves what is the impact felt on the ground in the
aftermath of a resolution. What are the changes it brings out in the
day-to-day life. Our view is that only a strong resolution would put an
end to the emboldenment of Colombo.

We are not demanding anything controversial. We are only asking the measures for which there is precedence, he said.

The
TSCF has therefore chosen to say that CoI should be welcomed if it
could come. But, we need to go beyond the jurisdiction of the UN Human
Rights Council. An international investigation should comprise a
criminal prosecution process. A transitional administration under UN
supervision should be established within a united framework of the
island and a UN Special Rapporteur to be appointed exclusively to
monitor the human rights situation in the North and East as it was done
in the case of Palestine, Mr Guruparan said.

The whole affair
unfolds as part of a larger scheme of geopolitics. Tamils should
therefore be firm on telling what they want, he said.

Even in
Security Council, things could be moved using the geopolitical moments
of negotiation between the permanent members of the Security Council.

There
is also a danger of extending the ‘Kaathiruppu arasiyal’ (wait-and-see
politics) on the Tamil side without demanding what they want, he said.

* * *

Further summary of Mr Guruparan's address to journalists in Jaffna:

Certain
representatives of Tamils and almost all the mainstream Tamil language
media have been telling the Tamil people that international
investigations would come in the resolution this year.

Following
the recent visits by the US Ambassador for Global Criminal Justice
Stephen Rapp in January and US Asst Secretary of State Nisha Desai
Biswal in February, the Tamil papers were quoting the Tamil National
Alliance (TNA) parliamentarians as telling that international
investigation would be included in the resolution to be tabled at UN
Human Rights Council this March. Tamil Civil Society Forum (TCSF) also
met the visiting diplomats, but we could not firmly assert whether an
international investigation would come. I don't want to get into the
‘dirty job’ questioning on whether these diplomats told the truth or
not.

The biggest disappointment of Tamils with the draft
resolution, released in the intranet in Geneva on 03 March and to be
tabled at the UN Human Rights Council, is that the International
Community (IC) is still having trust in the domestic investigation
mechanisms of the Sri Lankan State, even after the two rounds of
resolutions to the same effect without progress. In the words of Sri
Lanka's representative to the UN Mr Mahinda Samarasinghe, ‘time and
space’ has again been given to the Sri Lankan State. Further, the draft
resolution has gravely failed to point out the inability of the internal
processes.

British PM David Cameron, who visited the island,
echoed the position of UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, who in
her oral update to the Council in September 2013 had said that she would
be calling for international investigations in March if there was no
progress in conducting domestic investigations on war crimes and crimes
against humanity. Following British PM David Cameron's visit, there was
increased expectation among Tamils on the delivery of a Commission of
Inquiry (CoI) on Sri Lanka. That hope has now been dashed by this draft
resolution.

In my view, the most damaging aspect is that the
draft resolution fails even in recognising the lack of a conducive
environment in the island to expect a credible domestic investigation.
You will see it when comparing this draft with the recent report [17
February] of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

When it
comes to accountability, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Navi
Pillay in her latest report [24 February 2014], recommends an
international inquiry mechanism as the Sri Lankan government has failed
to conduct credible domestic investigations. In fact, this was her
stated policy during her oral update last year [25 September 2013] when
she said she would call for international investigations if no credible
and independent domestic investigations were not held before March 2014.
She has done it.

Following her experience on the two
resolutions in the past, in 2012 and 2013, Ms Navi Pillay recognises
that Colombo’s failure in conducting a credible and independent
investigation was not due to technical incapacity or lack of internal
mechanism.

The UN human rights chief had correctly identified
the problem, as the ‘lack of political will’ on the part of the Sri
Lankan government.

Another positive issue that caught my
attention while reading the UN High Commissioner’s report is that she
has recognized, especially after meeting the traumatized victims in
Vanni, that the victims would lose their confident on the Sri Lankan
State. Note the use of State and that she had avoided the term
Government here.

However, when it comes to reconciliation, Navi Pillay’s report seems to be harping on a domestic LLRC-based discourse.

We
disagree with the UN High Commissioner’s approach of addressing
accountability through international mechanism on one hand while
addressing reconciliation through a domestic LLRC process on the other
hand.

The view of the TCSF is in sharp contrast to her position
on reconciliation. How could one achieve reconciliation without the
needed conditions on the ground and addressing the accountability issue,
is our question. The opinion of the TCSF is that one could achieve a
meaningful reconciliation only through an international accountability
mechanism and through delivering political justice.

The High
Commissioner is provided with a new responsibility with the draft
resolution to monitor, report on the domestic investigations and to
investigate the crimes of both the parties. There is a danger that some
people will be misinterpreting the latter as a call for international
investigation.

Tamil people should know that the maximum the Human Rights Council could come up with is a CoI.

A proper international investigation involving a court procedure would only be possible through moving the Security Council.

There
is a slight but significant difference between UN Human Rights Council
appointing a CoI and the matter being left to the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

The difference is that a CoI report cannot be simply called as ‘yet another Pillay report’.

We
have witnessed how the Sri Lankan government was portraying the report
by the three-member expert panel appointed by UN Secretary General as
‘Darusman’ report.

It is true that both the UNHRC approaches
would only produce just another report. However, if a CoI comes up with a
finding that an international investigation involving criminal
procedure should be carried out, there is a chance of getting the
Security Council to act on it.

Since a CoI, which is often a
3-member-panel, is directly appointed by the multi-government forum of
47 member states of the UN Human Rights Council, which has in turn
received the direct mandate from the General Assembly of the UN, such a
CoI report cannot be simply denounced.

What we view as most
dangerous in the draft resolution being circulated in Geneva is that it
still calls upon the Sri Lankan State to conduct a domestic independent
and credible investigation. This is more dangerous than the issue of
asking the OHCHR to come up with another report.

The IC believes that the Sri Lankan State could still investigate the matter domestically, even after 5 years have gone.

The
most serious problem with the resolution is that it has failed to
recognize the fact that the domestic accountability mechanisms have
miserably failed in the past.

வியாழன், 6 மார்ச், 2014

IC has deceived Tamils on international investigations: Ananthy Sasistharan

[TamilNet, Thursday, 06 March 2014, 13:01 GMT]“The International Community has deceived the genocide affected
Tamils on delivering international investigations,” said Ananthy
Sasitharan, a councillor of the Northern Provincial Council at a press
conference held in Jaffna on Thursday. “The draft resolution being
criculated in Geneva has failed to satisfy even the minimum expections
totally disregarding the repeated requests from Tamils to deliver
international investigations, and in complete contrast to the
impressions given to the Tamils by the international community,” she
told the press. Ms Ananthy Sasistharan also blamed TNA parliamentarian
M.A. Sumanthiran for having instructed her to be silent at a crucial
meeting with the representatives of 18 countries during her recent visit
to Geneva.

“There was no restriction placed on
me before I left the island. In fact, I was encouraged by the ITAK
leaders and the Chief Minister of the NPC to accompany the ITAK
delegation to Geneva,” Ms. Ananthy told the reporters at Jaffna Press
Club.

“However, after a couple of meetings at Geneva, I was
instructed by Mr Sumanthiran — especially before a crucial meeting with
the representatives of 18 countries — that I should refrain from
addressing the delegates directly. He justified his stand by telling me
that there was a perception among the international players that I was
linked to the Tigers in the past and adviced me to remain silent,” she
said.

Mr Sumanthiran was only demanding to extend support to the
resolution to be tabled by the USA. The need for investigating war
crimes was mentioned, but he didn't demand an international
investigation, she said adding that there was no mention of genocide
despite a resolution was passed in the NPC demanding international
investigations on the situation equivalent to genocide, Ananthy told the
reporters who were repeatedly asking her to clarify whether Mr
Sumanthiran demanded an international investigation or not.

However,
Mr Sumanthiran took up the issues of land grab, the conduct of SL
Defence Secretary Gotahaya Rajapaksa in the militarisaton and the
question on what happened to the surrendees and the missing people, she
said.

USA ignores requests of Mannaar Bishop on UNHRC Resolution

[TamilNet, Wednesday, 05 March 2014, 14:57 GMT]Bishop of Mannaar Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph had sent a model
resolution to the foreign diplomatic missions, including the Embassy of
USA in Colombo, well in advance of the draft resolution by the USA was
leaked in Geneva this Monday. The proposal presented by Mannaar Bishop
was demanding international investigations on genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Prepared by the Tamil Civil Society Forum, the
proposal also called upon the “UN Secretary General and the UN Security
Council to activate procedures that will lead to a UN sponsored
international mechanism to assess the democratic aspirations of the
Tamil People, both in the homeland and in the diaspora for a permanent
political solution.”

The proposal by the Tamil civil society also urged the UN to consider a
Transitional Administration in the North-East of the island to prevent
and protect the Tamil people from the continued crimes listed in the
document.

“Please see attached a proposal for a draft resolution
in the upcoming UNHRC sessions in Geneva on accountability and
reconciliation in Sri Lanka. The draft has been put together by Tamil
civil society activists and is being sent to you to provide a
perspective as to our expectations of the Geneva sessions. We hope that
this document proves to be useful in your deliberations regarding the
matter.” Mannaar Bishop had urged the foreign missions.

The document was released to media on Tuesday, a day after the US draft has been leaked in Geneva.

The
proposal from the Tamil civil society should be considered as a model
resolution to be compared with the leaked draft resolution and its
future versions for the edification of Tamil activists in the homeland,
in Tamil Nadu and in the Diaspora, Tamil activists for alternative
politics in the island told TamilNet on Wednesday.

* * *

Following is the full text of the draft resolution presented by Mannaar Bishop.

Human Rights Council

Twenty-Fifth session

Agenda item …

Draft Resolution

Accountability and the human rights situation of the Tamils in the North-East of Sri Lanka

The Human Rights Council, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,

Recalling
Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on institution-building of the
Council, and 5/2, on the code of conduct for special procedures mandate
holders, of 18 June 2007,

Reaffirming the purposes and
principles of the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
relevant international human rights treaties, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that all
States are bound to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the
Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court and the Four Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols,

Recalling
that each individual State has responsibility under International Law
to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity

Recalling the responsibility
to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner when national
authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity

Recalling also in particular the UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/63/308 on the Responsibility to Protect

Recalling Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 of 22 March 2012 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,

Recalling also Human Rights Council resolution 22/L.1 of 21 March 2013 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka

Expressing serious concern at
the lack of implementation by the Government of Sri Lanka of previously
adopted resolutions and recommendations of the Council relating to the
human rights situation in Sri Lanka,

Noting with concern
the observation by the High Commissioner in her oral update on promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka on 27 September 2013
about the considerable military presence in the Tamil homeland in the
island of Sri Lanka, the high level of surveillance of returnees,
rehabilitees and detainees who have been released, the compulsory
acquisition of private land for installing military camps and other
installations, the prominent role of military in areas of civilian
administration and economic activity, including education, agriculture
and tourism.

Noting also the observation by the High
Commissioner in her oral update on promoting reconciliation and
accountability in Sri Lanka on 27 September 2013 that no new or
comprehensive effort to independently or credibly investigate the
allegations.

Noting further that the Government of Sri
Lanka has failed to act on the High Commissioner’s suggestion to the
Government of Sri Lanka to show a credible national process with
tangible results, including the successful prosecution of individual
perpetrators by March 2014

Noting further that the
Government of Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission
report and its recommendations have failed to bring about truth, justice
and reconciliation for Sri Lanka

Reaffirming the right of the Tamil people in the island of Sri Lanka to self-determination

Noting further
that successive Governments of Sri Lanka including the present have not
taken any credible steps towards accommodating the Tamil people’s
legitimate desire for self-determination and self-government within a
united Sri Lanka.

Unequivocally condemns the appropriation of land belonging
to the Tamil people by the Government of Sri Lanka, the continuous
detention of Tamil political prisoners without due process, the use of
sexual violence against Tamil female headed house hold and ex-female
LTTE cadres by armed forces attached to the Sri Lankan Government, the
denial of psycho-social support for the war affected Tamils, the ever
increasing role of the military in the daily lives of the Tamil people,
the relocation of Tamil IDPs in places other than their historical areas
of habitation, the continuous neglect of the livelihood of those
resettled, the intimidation, forced use of long-term contraceptives,
destruction of non-Buddhist religious places, violence perpetrated
against Tamil civil society and political activists and the denial of
the right to collective memory of the Tamil people.

Requests all
relevant special procedures mandate-holders, in particular the Special
Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of
internally displaced persons, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
arbitrary, summary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special
Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association, the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of
the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of religion or belief, the Independent Expert on minority
issues, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Special Rapporteur
on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of
non-recurrence, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education,
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict,
the Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, the Special Rapporteur on
adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of
living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, to
urgently seek and gather information on violations of the human rights
of the Tamil people and submit their reports to the Council at its next
session;

Decides to appoint a special rapporteur
to monitor the situation of human rights in the North-East of Sri Lanka
and to make recommendations for its improvement; to offer support and
advice to civil society; to seek, receive, examine and act on
information from all relevant stakeholders pertaining to the situation
of human rights in the North-East of Sri Lanka; and to report annually
to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly in accordance
with their respective programmes of work;

Calls upon the
UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council to activate procedures
that will lead to the setting up of a UN Transitional Administration in
the North-East of Sri Lanka to prevent and protect the Tamil people
from those issues identified in paragraph 1 above.

Decides to
dispatch an urgent, Independent International Commission of Inquiry, to
be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all
violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law including the alleged crimes of genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity, committed in the post-colonial Sri Lanka,
and calls upon Sri Lanka not to obstruct the process of investigation
and to fully cooperate with the Commission

Requests the
Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to provide all
administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable
the above-mentioned special procedures mandate-holders and the
fact-finding mission to fulfil their mandates promptly and efficiently.

Calls upon the
UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council to activate
procedures that will lead to a UN sponsored international mechanism to
assess the democratic aspirations of the Tamil People, both in the
homeland and in the diaspora for a permanent political solution.